GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents with the prayer that the order dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6 to the writ petition) by which punishment was awarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority be declared illegal and be quashed and the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits as if no such order dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6) was ever passed against the petitioner.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances :- The petitioner was Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department and through Memorandum dated 15. 12. 1983 (Ex. 1), the statement of allegations and charges were served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was facing enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCA Rules" ). The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the respondent No. 1 on 7. 10. 1987, but the copy of the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer recorded the findings that no charges were at all proved against the petitioner and this fact was made known to the petitioner when he got the certified copy of the enquiry report and the same is marked as Ex. 9. The Disciplinary Authority to whom the enquiry report was submitted did not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6) imposed the punishment of withholding of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner and in this writ petition, mainly that order of punishment dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6) has been challenged by the petitioner. In this petition, the main argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental enquiry initiated against him under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer imposed punishment on the petitioner vide order dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6), but before imposing punishment, no notice or opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and, therefore, imposing of punishment through order dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6) is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Apart from this, the enqiry report was given to the petitioner after passing the impugned order of punishment dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6) and since it is a post decisional action, therefore, supplying of copy of enquiry report after imposition of punishment would have no meaning and the principles of natural justice stand violated. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following two decisions :- (1) Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra (1 ). (2) R. C. Jain vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra) has held that principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7 (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority record its findings on the charges framed against the officer. In the present case, there is no dispute on the point that the petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry initiated against him under Rule 16 of CCA Rules. There is also no dispute on the point that before imposing the punishment on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority through order dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6), no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. There is also no dispute on the point that no show cause notice of disagreement with the reasons of the Enquiry Officer was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of punishment dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6 ). There is also no dispute on the point that the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner after passing the impugned order of punishment dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6 ).
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents has not controverted the above facts and position of law. Thus, looking to the above facts and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra), since before passing the impugned order of punishment dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6), no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, it is a fit case where it can easily be said that the principles of natural justice have been violated as without issuing any show cause notice of disagreement with reasons of the Enquiry Officer and without affording an opportunity of being heard, the punishment was imposed on the petitioner through order dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6 ). Furthermore, the enquiry report was given to the petitioner after passing the impugned order of punishment dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6) and since it can be regarded as post decisional action, therefore, supplying of the enquiry report after imposition of punishment would have no meaning and the principles of natural justice stand violated at this juncture. In these circumstances, the impugned order of punishment dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. Since the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner pertains to the period of 1983 and now about 19 years have passed, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the case at this stage to the Disciplinary Authority for proceeding afresh. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order of punishment dated 21. 9. 1988 (Ex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 1 is set aside. I further order that the proceedings taken against the petitioner would come to an end and there is no need to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for selection and imposition of fresh penalty, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefit including the benefit of promotion etc. No order as to costs. . ;